Permanent Custodians Limited and Anor v King and Ors [2010] NSWSC 554

Permanent Custodians Limited and Anor v King and Ors [2010] NSWSC 554

The delay in raising reliance on Part 4 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 by Mr Vertzayas was unjustified, and although the case was not wholly lacking in merit, the delay warranted departure from the ordinary costs rule; an indemnity costs order in Mr King's favour was appropriate.

Parties
Plaintiff: Permanent Custodians Limited; First Defendant: Paul David King; Second Defendant/cross Claimant: Charles Stuart King; First Cross Defendant: Permanent Custodians Limited; Second Cross Defendant: Pepper Finance Corporation Ltd; Third Cross Defendant: Bill Laskaris trading as Able Finance; Fourth Cross Defendant: Dion Vertzayas, Vertzayas Lawyers Pty Ltd; Fifth Cross Defendant: Paul King
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Post Motion for Leave to Amend Defence, Costs Determination
Outcome
Indemnity costs ordered against Mr Vertzayas in favour of Mr King regarding the motion.
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Departing From General Rule
Procedure Costs Indemnity Costs Departing From General Rule

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Permanent Custodians Limited

Plaintiff

Paul David King

First Defendant

Charles Stuart King

Second Defendant/cross Claimant

Permanent Custodians Limited

First Cross Defendant

Pepper Finance Corporation Ltd

Second Cross Defendant

Bill Laskaris trading as Able Finance

Third Cross Defendant

Dion Vertzayas, Vertzayas Lawyers Pty Ltd

Fourth Cross Defendant

Paul King

Fifth Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Principal Judgment / Post Motion for Leave to Amend Defence, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be ordered against Mr Vertzayas for the motion seeking leave to amend his defence
  2. 2 Whether delay in reliance on Part 4 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 justified departure from the usual costs rule

Ratio Decidendi

The delay in raising reliance on Part 4 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 by Mr Vertzayas was unjustified, and although the case was not wholly lacking in merit, the delay warranted departure from the ordinary costs rule; an indemnity costs order in Mr King's favour was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Indemnity costs ordered against Mr Vertzayas in favour of Mr King regarding the motion.

Orders

  • Mr Vertzayas to bear Mr King's costs of the motion on an indemnity basis.